News & views from the American Coalition for Ethanol.

Corn

March 16, 2011

The Governors' Biofuels Coalition (GBC) wrote yesterday to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack asking the agency to immediately correct its reporting procedures that overstate the amount of corn used for ethanol in the U.S.

"In recent months, global weather disruptions, rising oil prices, commodity speculation, and rising incomes that drive increased demand for grains and meat proteins have combined to once again put upward price pressure on corn and other commodities. Predictably, first-generation ethanol opponents have begun to resurrect the food vs. fuel attacks... despite the fact that numerous studies by global food organizations, the Congressional Budget Office, and other reputable experts confirmed that ethanol was not a significant factor," the letter states.

"Unfortunately, USDA's monthly corn supply and demand reports provide support for this sensationalized reporting because they identify 'corn demand for ethanol' without immediately noting this is gross demand, and not the net use of the starch portion of the corn kernel," the letter continues. "This overstates the use of corn for ethanol by as much as a factor of two or more, and fails to inform the public about what is truly happening in the food and fuel supply chain."

USDA reporting does not take into account the fact that to produce ethanol, only the starch portion of the corn kernel is used, and all the nutritional value of the corn -- the fat, fiber, and protein -- are returned to the food supply in the form of distillers grain, a high-quality livestock feed.

The current USDA reporting system does not count the 33% of the corn that comes back to the nation's supply, giving the impression to the public that ethanol uses much more corn than it actually does. A continuing error of one-third should not be acceptable. I fully agree with the Governors' Biofuels Coalition that the USDA's reporting needs to be corrected as soon as possible so the public and the media can have a more accurate picture of the real amount of corn used for ethanol, as well as ethanol plants' contribution of a valuable food product for the nation's livestock -- food for those that feed us. Food and fuel, not food versus fuel.

March 9, 2011

With oil prices currently around $95 a barrel, the cost of crude oil is about $2.25 a gallon. After it is refined, shipped, loaded, and delivered to a station, we pay $2.50 to $2.75 (plus around 50 cents in federal, state, and other taxes) for a gallon of their finished product.

Similarly, with corn at around six bucks a bushel, ethanol plants take about $2.25 in corn and, after it is refined, shipped, loaded, taxed and delivered to a station, it is also sold for around the same $2.50 a gallon.

Meanwhile, Big Food companies take the same $2.25 worth of corn and make it into 100 bucks worth of cornflakes, or several hundred dollars worth of candy or soft drinks. Then they have a little extra money so they can hire PR folks to blame ethanol and oil as the reason for high food prices.

In 2008 when the Grocery Manufacturers Association hired Glover Park to smear ethanol and blame the corn used (less than 3 percent of the world’s grain) in ethanol production, Big Food lamented the increased price of corn, said prices would go higher, and then raised their prices to prove they were right. The result? Record food company profits.

If I have ever said that Big Food is almost as bad as Big Oil, I take it back. They’re every bit as bad. Maybe worse.

It doesn’t take a lot of knowledge about markets and economics to understand that when government farm payments are at their highest, while those payments help farmers manage market volatility, they are also keeping Big Food companies’ costs artificially low. It is easy to see why Big Food would rather go back to the days when they paid two bucks for corn and you and I paid the rest of the bill with tax dollars.

What is hard to understand is how all of these ethanol detractors think that paying less for corn will encourage farmers to grow more of it. Ethanol production is causing more corn to be grown – more food is available because ethanol has created real markets for corn. As a bonus, ethanol adds to the fuel supply and helps moderate oil prices.

When oil prices go up, people carpool, take public transportation, ride a bike, walk, or stay home. When food prices go up, people don’t have options like that. If Big Food – with its shiny new mega-stores, elaborate packaging, and ultra-high prices on actual healthy food – is truly concerned about people being able to afford to eat, the solution is simple:

January 26, 2011

While I was amused that The Wall Street Journal would invoke “morality” in one of its editorials, I was stunned by the sheer number of half-truths, miscalculations, and misleading statements that could be wedged into one 600 word anti-ethanol editorial, “Amber Waves of Ethanol.”

The article primarily seeks to blame ethanol for higher food prices, and even the failure of two food companies, yet it includes no discussion about the morality of other Big Food companies who managed to thrive during the time period the others failed, by invoking the mythical “food vs. fuel” bogeyman as an excuse to raise their prices and reap record profits. While the “food vs. fuel” PR campaign was wildly successful, it was not the truth, and it still isn’t.

In fact, the opposite is true. More corn for all other uses is now available in the United States because of growing ethanol production (see chart).

Chart shows the U.S. corn crop in billions of bushels, the portion used to make ethanol, and the portion remaining for food, feed, and export.

Sources: Corn production data: U.S. Department of Agriculture / Ethanol production data: U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Service

The WSJ article talks of “reduced corn food supply,” which is at best ignorant of reality. The supply of corn for food in America and around the world is increasing, and in the United States that is due in part to the fact that ethanol has restored market pricing to corn – as opposed to artificially low prices with government payments designed to keep farmers growing cheap corn. Because real grain markets are more attractive, farmers are growing more corn – more food – than ever before. I am continually puzzled by those who think farmers will grow more corn if they are paid less for it. Which economics textbook did I miss that contained that theory?

The article contained many other factual errors, such as ignoring consistently higher corn yields and record-setting corn production, no recognition that ethanol only uses starch and returns all of corn’s protein, fat and fiber to the food supply in the form of the animal feed distillers grain (a 33 percent error), and no recognition of the fact that China – yes, China – is currently accusing U.S. ethanol producers of producing too much of this low-cost feed. I am led to the conclusion that if this is the quality of analysis being used to make decisions on Wall Street, we had better be prepared to bail them out again.

The American ethanol industry, comprised of farmers and small businesses, is ready and willing to help the U.S. “win the future” for the sake of our economic security, national security, and environmental protection.

President Obama delivered the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress last night, and we are grateful for his statement “clean-energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean-energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they're selling.”

The American ethanol industry couldn’t agree more. If Congress and the Administration take steps to remove Big Oil’s status-quo grip on the fuel market, corn ethanol and advanced biofuel will finally have the certainty to supply safer and more affordable fuel choices to consumers while creating jobs for the U.S. That is why the E10 blend wall must be overcome with an approval for E15 in all cars and why policies that deploy more Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) and blender pumps should be implemented.

We are pleased that President Obama declared “we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels,” and note that American ethanol, the most widely available biofuel, is already displacing approximately 350 million barrels of foreign oil – essentially eliminating the need for the U.S. to purchase oil from Saudi Arabia.

The President rightly pointed out that Big Oil companies are profiting on their own, let alone the billions in taxpayer dollars they benefit from each year. Redirecting oil company subsidies toward cleaner, safer, and better alternatives – such as American ethanol – is the kind of investment that will create the domestic jobs we need for the economy to recover and grow.

Finally, because there is no silver-bullet solution to reducing oil use, we appreciate the President’s goal to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. Nonetheless, there are already nearly 9 million FFVs on the road. These FFVs can run on any blend of ethanol and gasoline, and should number nearly 20 million by 2015.

Steps to ensure there are more FFVs and that the owners of these vehicles have the opportunity to use ethanol-blended fuel need attention this year.

August 11, 2010

Dr. Wallace Tyner of Purdue University’s Department of Agricultural Economics made his second appearance at an American Coalition for Ethanol conference, his presentation this year a follow up to 2009 where he discussed his department’s new GTAP (Global Trade Analysis Project) modeling for biofuels and land use change.

Dr. Tyner first discussed the E10 Blend Wall and the impact it will have on the next generations of biofuels.

“We are at the blend wall,” Tyner said. “It is literally a wall. You cannot technically go beyond that wall.”

Because corn-based ethanol has now filled the allowable marketplace, the break-even price is now based on corn instead of being linked with gasoline as it has been in the past, he explained.

Dr. Tyner also explained that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency made a fundamental change in the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) in its February 2010 final ruling. The agency changed the metric on the rule, effectively converting the RFS from a volumetric basis to an energy basis. The RFS now calls for 36 billion gallons of “ethanol equivalent.” All possible biofuels – bio-gasoline, algae, etc. – are all given an “ethanol equivalent” rating – bio-gasoline is given a 1.5 gallon rating, for example. This could actually lower the total amount of biofuel being used in the U.S. under the RFS>

Regarding the E10 Blend Wall, Tyner said that it is firmly standing in the way of cellulosic ethanol development.

“There’s no room at the inn for cellulose-based ethanol,” he said. “If we stay at E10, you can forget about cellulose-based ethanol.”

Even if EPA regulations are changed to allow E15, it might only increase the ethanol blending limit to 19 billion gallons. If corn ethanol is limited at 15 billion gallons and “other advanced” biofuels are given 4 billion gallons, as stated in the RFS, there is still no room for the growth of cellulosic ethanol.

“Even if we go to E15, there’s no room at the inn for cellulose,” Tyner said. “The implications of the blend wall are much farther than just corn ethanol alone.”

Dr. Tyner has been working on the issue of land-use change for about three years, a timeframe he says isn’t actually very long given the complexity of the issue. He has developed the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model to study how biofuels impact land use, and this year they have made updates to the model based on some new information.

Changes to the Purdue GTAP model include:

Three major biofuels have been incorporated into the model: corn ethanol, sugarcane ethanol, and biodiesel.

Cropland pasture and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land have been added, not accounted for in previous work.

Energy sector demand and supply have been re-estimated and calibrated to 2006.

Distillers grain has been added to the model, including its treatment, production, consumption, and trade – Tyner called this a “significant improvement”

The structure of the livestock sector has been modified to better reflect its actual functioning

A corn yield response to higher prices has been built into the model.

A change has been made to the way the model treats new land brought into production, better reflecting the actual productivity of the new land.

Dr. Tyner showed the evolution of the GTAP results, from the beginning of the model to now with these updates and improvements to the data. The modeling in January 2009 showed that .27 hectares of land were needed (globally) for every 1,000 gallons of biofuel. In August 2010, the improved modeling shows that only .13 hectares are needed – less than half of their earlier estimate.

“All of these changes in the model and improvements in the database have led us to conclude that the land-use implications are much smaller than we had estimated recently,” Tyner said.

He pointed out that the Purdue estimate is substantially less than Tim Searchinger’s much-publicized research on land-use change. Searchinger’s results found that .75 hectares of land are needed, compared to Purdue’s .13 hectares.

“In terms of land use change based on greenhouse gas emissions, the results that we’re getting today are fourteen percent of the results Tim Searchinger got in his original work,” Tyner said.

Dr. Tyner said he is a proponent of changing the way the emissions of gasoline and biofuels are compared. Currently the law in California and at the U.S. EPA compares averages, not marginals. He believes it’s more fair to compare the most recent ethanol plant built with the most recent oil extracted, which is likely oil from the Canadian tar sands. Using averages ignores the fact that ethanol is increasingly efficient while oil is increasingly damaging to the environment as it becomes harder and more costly to extract.

Dr. Tyner acknowledged that land use change is a controversial topic. Some say it’s not even possible to measure these things, but he believes that with one-third of the corn crop going to ethanol, it is important to use the best science available to try to accurately measure any land use change.

“What we’ve tried to do to the best of our ability, and to the best data available, is to estimate these,” Tyner said. “They are still highly uncertain. I do this work all the time, and I’m the first to tell you that these estimates are highly uncertain.”

Dr. Tyner said that, in terms of public policy, this GTAP modeling work can be helpful in how the EPA is implementing the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) and the threshold tests for greenhouse gas emissions. However, what the California Air Resources Board is doing with its Low Carbon Fuel Standard is an entirely different story, he said, because they are using the measure in the value of implementing the policy. Every tenth of a percent of carbon under the CARB rules can make a huge difference.

“We cannot measure it accurately enough to withstand almost any court case test,” Tyner said. “It depends on how you use the information, in my view, whether or not it’s something that’s useful in the debate.”

August 10, 2010

The second day of the ACE Ethanol Conference featured a panel discussion titled “Grain Changers: DDGS & the Truth Behind Food Prices.”

Jay O’Neil, Senior Agricultural Economist for the International Grains Program at Kansas State University, outlined four variables that can affect the price of food: commodity prices, fuel prices, world economic growth, and speculation. These variables, combined with weather-related problems in crop production, impact the price of food. Ethanol, however, does not have a large role in food prices.

“Ethanol had very little to do with it,” O’Neil said, referencing the world-wide run-up in commodity prices in 2008. The increase in world grain prices was due to a shortage in the wheat crop, in Australia, Europe, as well as the U.S. and Canada. Other commodities followed, and the subsequent increase in food prices was wrongly blamed on corn used for ethanol. The current drought in Russia affecting the wheat crop may bring another round of misguided “food or fuel” questioning if other commodity prices are affected.

O’Neil asked what we as Americans are more afraid of: corn prices increasing by 50 percent, or crude oil prices increasing 50 percent.

“Which of these scenarios would display the biggest threat to our economy?" he asked. "While ethanol gives America fuel independence and represents an investment in farm values, our dependence on crude oil negatively impacts our economy and our national security."

The second panelist was Bill Couser, owner of Couser Cattle Company of Nevada, Iowa. He is current president of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association and serves on the board of Lincolnway Energy, also of Nevada.

At his family-owned cattle feedlot, Couser said he witnesses first-hand that “food versus fuel” is an absolute myth. He delivers corn to the ethanol plant harvested on his farm, and then takes the co-product distillers grain home to incorporate into the feeding ration for his cattle. Not everyone realizes that only the starch portion of the corn kernel is used to make ethanol, and all the nutrients from the corn – fat, fiber, protein etc. – is returned to the feed/food supply in the form of distillers grain.

Couser also reminded the attendees of the importance of story. “Farmers, ethanol producers, and industry supporters alike need to tell their stories to lawmakers," he said. "It's these stories, coming from your mouths, that bring credibility to ethanol's story."

May 11, 2010

New research finds that the amount of "land use emissions" from corn-based ethanol is less than half of the figure used as the basis for California's low carbon fuel standard (LCFS). The new report from Purdue University is an update to its Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model, the model used by the California Air Resources Board to form the LCFS.

The GTAP model was updated in several ways, including to update the global economic database from 2001 to 2006 figures, expanding the amount and types of land included in the analysis, increasing the value of ethanol's co-product distillers grain as an animal feed, assuming a conservative increase in crop yields, and changing assumptions about how and when carbon is released from harvested trees.

The result: average "land use emissions" from corn ethanol are 13.9 grams CO2-equivalent per megajoule (g/MJ) instead of the 30 g/MJ used by California for the LCFS. This is a pretty significant difference.

Wallace Tyner of Purdue, lead author on the study, was quoted by Hoosier Ag Today as saying, "...the original work was sort of a first cut, and we needed to take a more thorough, careful look with new data, new modeling approaches, and model parameters."

What does all this mean? It means the California Air Resources Board needs to take a look at this new information and update their modeling to include this better data. It also means that the science of "indirect land use change" is still very new and full of uncertainties. Even the Purdue researchers state in the report that "... one cannot escape the conclusion that modeling land use change is quite uncertain." It means much more research is needed on "indirect land use change" before policies should use it as a basis for far-reaching decisions.

And there's still the question of why CARB is choosing to selectively apply indirect land use charges only to biofuels and not to petroleum. A blog post for another day...

May 6, 2010

As I've shared a little bit here on this blog and through my editor's notes in Ethanol Today magazine, my husband and I farm with my parents here near Willow Lake, South Dakota, in the northeastern part of the state. We're the fifth generation on the family farm, which was established in 1895. We raise corn, soybeans, wheat, alfalfa, and a few Black Angus cattle. With fewer Americans living on farms, or even having the opportunity to see or visit a farm, the misunderstandings and misconceptions about modern agriculture are growing.

You can see this in many people's lack of basic knowledge about where food comes from, and in conversations surrounding things like ethanol, where people believe that farmers are selling food to be made into ethanol, or that farmers are plowing up all their grassland to plant to corn. Agriculture and ethanol production are much more positive than they are often portrayed by the media, and here we hope to give at least a small glimpse into what happens on your everyday, average family farm.

Spring has arrived, and that means one thing... let's plant!

Actually, there's a lot of work that happens before any planting can begin. With corn, for example, we start thinking about which seed varieties to plant even before last year's crop is harvested. Seed companies have test plots that show new varieties of seed and how they perform, and you can visit them in the fall and get the data you need to make decisions about what to plant on your own farm. We decide on what kind of corn to plant and purchase most of the seed even before year's end.

This picture shows what a corn field looks like just after it's harvested.

This is called stover, and it's the corn stalks and leaves left over after the combine goes through the field to pick the ears of corn. We leave this on the field because the nutrients in the stover are good for the health of the soil, and it also preserves moisture in the soil and prevent erosion -- similar to how mulch works in your garden.

The photo below shows two of our fields -- the left one had corn on it last year, and the right one had soybeans on it last year. The field on the right has just been tilled and is ready for planting.

Since soybeans were grown there last year, we'll plant corn there this year. Likewise, the the corn field will this year get soybeans. Crop rotation is a good way to take care of the soil.

Just like in any business, they're figuring out better ways to do things all the time. Twenty-five years ago, plowing your fields was common practice. Today, research has shown that less tilling is better for the soil, so most farmers use minimum-till or even no-till practices. We go over the fields as few times as possible, which saves time, saves fuel, and keeps the soil quality at its best.

As you can see by the picture, we're facing a rainy forecast, so we're working hard to get field work done before the rain comes. Next week I'll post pictures of the corn being planted.

When I was little, I had a t-shirt that said "Proud to be a farmer's daughter." Today I'm proud to be a farmer's daughter, a farmer's wife, and farmer myself. And I'm proud that some of the corn we grow here goes to make ethanol, which is the cleanest and best fuel choice out there today.

May 4, 2010

This op-ed was written by American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) member Ron Fagen, President & CEO of Fagen Inc. of Granite Falls, MN.

A
recent op-ed alleging that “the ethanol boom is over” and that “policies to
further the corn ethanol industry should not be supported” demands a response, both
because it is patently untrue and because my words were twisted and taken out
of context to justify the editorialist’s opinion about corn ethanol. I
respect that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But, in the case
of the op-ed titled “Beyond Corn Ethanol” published on April 28, 2010 by
Minnesota 2020, neither the opinions nor the so-called facts expressed were
accurate.

It’s true that Fagen Inc. has partnered with farmers to build more than half of
all the ethanol plants in the U.S. It’s also true that technology
innovations have enabled corn farmers and ethanol producers to become
incredibly efficient stewards of resources. Today, corn farmers use fewer
inputs and less energy on fewer acres of land to produce more bushels of corn
than ever before. Case in point: in 2009, U.S. farmers planted 7 million
feweracres of corn than
in 2007, but they produced more
corn than in the previous record year of 2007 thanks to technology and yield
increases. At the same time, ethanol plants have reduced energy and water
use to become more sustainable and efficient. University studies indicate
that one gallon of ethanol contains more than two times the amount of energy
used to make it.

So it is not accurate – in fact, it is downright misleading – to suggest corn
ethanol has no future. Today, ethanol-blended fuel is the most affordable
and clean-burning alternative to gasoline. And more importantly, unlike
some other promising alternative fuels, we don’t have to wait for more ethanol
because it is here now as the only commercially viable substitute to fossil
fuels. In fact, this year U.S. ethanol producers will rank as our
nation’s third largest supplier of fuel on a gasoline-equivalent basis, behind
only Canada and Saudi Arabia, and ahead of Venezuela.
Ethanol has also triggered more economic prosperity in rural America than
anything else in my lifetime. It has enabled corn farmers to earn more
for their crops, and ethanol has given farmers and rural citizens the opportunity
to invest in locally owned production facilities, operations where the profits
stay in rural America. According to a report issued by the Minnesota
Department of Agriculture in 2008, the combined impact of corn and ethanol
production in Minnesota has generated $6 billion in economic activity and
impacted 26,000 jobs. Nationwide, ethanol supports 400,000 jobs across
the U.S. economy and generates more than $50 billion to our Gross Domestic
Product.
At the same time ethanol is becoming more efficient and making a positive difference
for the environment and U.S. energy security, oil is making a difference too –
a dangerous difference. At present, 5000 barrels of oil per day are
leaking from a deepwater well in the Gulf of Mexico and the spill is polluting
the shores of the U.S. Gulf Coast, threatening wildlife and the environment.
I run a construction company, and I am actively engaged in the development of
renewable energy from ethanol to wind to biomass power production facilities.
The opinion piece suggests that I have “changed focus” by moving away
from corn ethanol and that this should send a message to policy makers to shift
away from supporting corn ethanol as well. Nothing could be farther from
the truth. My family and my company
fully support the growth of ethanol and welcome the opportunity to construct
more ethanol plants. Unfortunately, government bureaucracy currently
limits corn ethanol from expanding and today’s installed capacity for corn
ethanol is maxed out under current law. In other words, the ethanol plants
in operation and currently under construction in the U.S. have the capability
to exceed the 15 billion gallon per year limit of production included in the
2007 Energy Bill. That’s right, Congress has capped the volume of corn
ethanol by allowing no more than 15 billion gallons of production to qualify
for the Renewable Fuels Standard. What’s more, at present the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) arbitrarily restricts the volume of
ethanol that can be blended into a gallon of gasoline to just 10 percent.
I am working with others to tackle these problems, but until or unless
EPA allows more ethanol in gasoline or Congress acts, there isn’t any market
space available to build new plants.
It is important to note that public policy is not only holding corn ethanol
back from unleashing its ability to provide the U.S. with cleaner and more
affordable fuel, but these restrictions also prevent the “next-generation” of
biofuels from becoming commercially available. I support both corn
ethanol and advanced biofuels and am disappointed that some try to pit corn
ethanol against advanced biofuel – we need both. As we employ technology
to drive down the process and capital costs associated with advanced biofuel,
let’s take advantage of the benefits of corn ethanol.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the amount of corn currently
stored on farms in the U.S. is about 4.6 billion bushels, which is larger than
the amount of corn that is expected to be processed into ethanol during the 2009/2010
marketing year. U.S. farmers can produce enough corn for feed, fuel, and
food, and U.S. ethanol producers can efficiently distill corn into
clean-burning renewable fuel and high-value livestock feed through distillers
grains.
Entrepreneurs in the U.S. are capable of replacing foreign oil with corn
ethanol and advanced biofuels from a variety of sources, but only if the policy
limitations are addressed by Congress and the Administration. That’s
where we ought to focus.

April 23, 2010

It's good to recognize April 22 as "Earth Day," but it's even better if the attitude of caring for our Earth can be carried through in our actions every day of the year. To me, one of the simplest ways to protect the planet is the choices we make at the gas pump.

It's a simple choice -- ethanol or oil. And the reality is that ethanol is clean and getting cleaner, and oil is dirty and getting dirtier. Consider these facts:

The efficiency of corn-based ethanol in the United States is improving nearly every day. For example, between 2001 and 2008:

And as new sources of ethanol, like cellulosic ethanol, come online, the environmental benefits will be even better. Corn-based ethanol today represents a 48% to 59% reduction in direct greenhouse gas emissions over gasoline, and cellulosic ethanol is expected to reduce emissions by twice again as much.

In comparison, petroleum's profile is only getting worse. As we use up the oil that's easy to get at, we must drill deeper and explore farther -- all at a greater cost to the environment. Take the Canadian oil sands, for example.

"Canada's oil sands are layers of sticky, tarlike bitumen mixed with sand, clay, and water. Around a hundred feet of oil must be stripped off to reach many deposits."

"About two tons of bitumen-laden sand are required to produce a single barrel of oil, but it's no straight line from the mine to the gas tank. After being separated from its sandy matrix in a hot water wash, bitumen is transferred to upgrading facilities like Syncrude's, where it is heated and processed in order to break its long, heavy chain of hydrocarbon molecules. Carbon is removed, hydrogen is added, and the new, lighter product is transformed into synthetic crude oil. From there the oil can be further refined into gasoline or jet fuel."

All of this before the oil is even turned into gasoline. What kind of fuel do you want in your tank? Think "Earth Day" next time you fill up, and choose ethanol-blended fuel.

March 11, 2010

America's farmers grow 588 percent more corn per acre today than they did 80 years ago. Isn't that an awesome statistic?

And this might be just the beginning, according to experts interviewed for the March/April issue of Ethanol Today.

Many believe corn yields could double again by mid-century. In its strategic plan, the National Corn Growers Association says it's using a "conservative forecast" of 205 bushels per acre by 2020. NCGA President and family farmer Darrin Ihnen notes in his ET guest editorial that the 24 winners of last year's national corn yield contest averaged yields of 300 bushels per acre or better. That gives us a glimpse at what future yields may be possible.

Ethanol critics, take note -- with yield improvements like this, it does not require the tilling of more land to grow more corn. With better seed genetics and new farming technologies, America's farmers are growing larger crops on the same amount of land. In fact, last year's record corn crop was actually grown on 7 million fewer acres than were used to grow the previous record. And it's important to note that these crops are being produced using fewer energy inputs and with less environmental impact. In farming, just like in other industries, they're figuring out ways to do things more sustainably.

"The times, they are a-changin'," as the saying goes. My dad says when he started farming in the late '50s, corn yields of 100 bushels per acre weren't even imaginable. Today, triple-digit yields are the norm, even here in South Dakota where we're considered to be in the western part of the Corn Belt. My husband and I are honored to be the fifth generation on my family's farm. What will yields look like during our generation and the next? I'm excited to be here as it all unfolds.

The world is a bigger place today, with a growing number of people and a larger population that can afford more protein in their diet. We also need to diversify our energy supplies and wean ourselves from the petroleum-only diet. What a better solution than to take this abundance of corn, use the starch to make renewable ethanol, and use the actual "food" portions of the kernel to create a high-protein livestock feed at the same production facility. Seems like a win-win.

America's farmers are the most productive anywhere, and I know they're up to the task of producing the food, feed, fiber, and fuel that the world needs. Go farmers!

Click on the cover image at the left to view the new digital version of Ethanol Today magazine.